SOME GUN RELATED QUESTIONS FOR LIBERALS:

[Port Tack]

My questions are very straightforward. You are simply here to troll. I'm not interested in your trolling atm.

Your questions were fucking stupid. If this country were to ban the sale of these military weapons these whackos would have a hard time getting their hands on one. You don't even have to confiscate the ones already out there.

 

[RB 60]

The only fear I have is of your ignorance and red-neckery. It's killing our children. I know you don't care about anything but hugging that stupid AR, you're only little friend close to you.

We know your priorities now, you useless fuck. Guns over kids. The whole world saw you last week, Mary Beth.

We're getting them now. You fucked up, bitch.

I don't own an AR.

You are both illiterate and incompetent.

You'll get nothing.

 

[LurchAddams]

I don't own an AR.

You are both illiterate and incompetent.

You'll get nothing.

LOL.. yes, I'm illiterate. What a BIZAAR thing for you to say So if you don't own any military rifles, you'll be fine. You're just a stupid troll.

Blow me, beeyach.

 

[RB 60]

LOL.. yes, I'm illiterate. What a BIZAAR thing for you to say So if you don't own any military rifles, you'll be fine. You're just a stupid troll.

Blow me, beeyach.

I own a few military issued rifles. So?

 

[LurchAddams]

I own a few military issued rifles. So?

Fuck you, troll. I'm done dancing with you, bitch.

We're getting the guns.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

[1a] Given the fact that murder laws do not stop mass murders from happening, why do you believe that additional laws (e.g. gun regulation/confiscation laws) will somehow stop mass murders from happening?

Logical fallacies may seem like fun but they are logical fallacies.
You start out with a strawman argument where you claim the other side has argued that gun regulation will stop all mass murders. That is your strawman.
Then you pile on with a false dichotamy fallacy where you argue that if all mass murders are not stopped then the laws are a failure.

Let's modify this to see if you can answer one that is similar.

Given the fact that current voting laws don't stop voter fraud, why do you believe that additional laws will stop voter fraud?

So give us your answer right after you tell us when you stopped beating your wife. A loaded question is always a loaded question and yours was certainly a loaded question. If you want to prove it wasn't a loaded then answer my question which I readily admit is a logical fallacy.
If you truly believe that more laws won't stop mass murders than you must also truly believe that more laws won't stop voter fraud.

[1b] Isn't your belief in [1a] the very definition of insanity?

The insanity is yours since the question you asked only reflects your thinking and not the thinking of anyone on the left.

[2] MANY millions of Statesman own guns and have not committed any crimes with them. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

Once again, you provide us with the same fallacy.
Since millions of people have voted without committing any crimes why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent voters for the actions of a select few people?

[3] Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

Armed personnel aren't that effective when it comes to mass shootings. In fact if we go back to your first question and its logical fallacy we can simply rely on the same logical fallacy you started with.
Since an armed guard in the TOPS grocery was unable to stop a mass murder why do you think adding more armed guards will stop mass murders? Then we can ask, "Isn't your belief that armed guards will stop mass murders the very definition of insanity?"

[4a] Why do you immediately blame the gun rather than the person using it?

When was the last time anyone killed 4 people with a baseball bat? I don't think people should be attacked with baseball bats but it would certainly result in a lot less people killed by mass murderers if they could only rely on baseball bats.

[4b] Why do you never examine the murderers themselves in order to find common links between them which could then be addressed (e.g. prescription of psychoactive drugs)?

The funny thing about all those murderers is that they all used a gun that they were able to easily buy. Why do you refuse to admit that this is a common link?

[4c] Why do you never consider taking simple preventative measures (e.g. installing special doors that can be quickly closed and locked)?

A simple preventative measure would be to not let them buy a gun designed to kill people.
But installing doors that can be quickly locked is not simple or cheap. You would be talking billions of dollars and many years. Then you would also need to do the same to windows, classroom doors, and walls inside the school. Somehow I think someone not willing to sacrifice their ability to buy an Ar-15 is going to be willing to sacrifice and pay more in taxes to protect children in schools.

[5] What gives you the right to tell other people what they do or do not "need"?

What gives you the right to demand that other people sacrifice their children so you can own an AR-15?

 

[American Man]

Yep. Lots of guns in student parking lot during hunting seasons. We were taught right from wrong. Why can't you teach your kids the same?

I don't have kids. And are you seriously claiming that there were never any public shootings in America prior to last couple of decades?

 

[gfm7175]

If assault type weapons were banned and it was a felony to sell one to your buddy, Ramos would not have been able to buy one at a store. He would have to either steal one from someone who has one or find someone willing to sell him one and risk being an accessory to 19 murders. Not likely. It's also not likely that he would have attempted this with a handgun, he wanted the thrill of being GI Joe.


You are the one insane thinking he would be able to get his hands on one.

You ever hear of the black market?

I did not suggest taking anyone's guns away, not even those with an AR type.

You are suggesting policies that only affect law abiding gun owners, hence why I said what I said.

Because that is ridiculously expensive and really won't work.

Clearly the lives of children are not worth much to you.

What makes you think if armed police are too chickenshit to go after a shooter that your 3rd grade teacher is going to be able to?

So guns aren't the problem then??

I blame both, if the fucker did not have that gun 19 kids would still be alive.

He'd just use another gun, or another tool. And I can make claims like that too:

If police would have competently done their jobs, then 19 kids would still be alive.
If psychoquacks weren't liberally prescribing psychoactive drugs, then 19 kids would still be alive.
If the school had some basic security measures in place, then 19 kids would still be alive.

We have, they all have been mentally deranged,

So mental derangement is the issue (and not the existence of guns)?

why the fuck do we sell the mentally deranged machine guns?

He didn't use a machine gun.
Define "mentally deranged".
Maybe the person acquired the gun when he was "mentally stable" and then became "mentally deranged" at a later date?

We can't even initiate a red flag law that allows people to point the fuckers out so we don't sell them guns.

Won't work. See above.

How do you prevent the mentally deranged from getting these guns if the background checks don't look at anyone's mental stability much less prevent them from buying one? /quote]
You can't. The person is the problem, not the tool. Maybe we should be properly treating these people instead of normalizing their derangement?

They don't work asshole.

They work if enacted properly.

That door this shooter walked in was supposed to be locked. A teacher said she thought it was locked.

Obviously that security measure was not enacted properly then. Obviously incompetent security measures mixed with incompetent police response mixed with drug and familial issues led to the murder of those children.

a democracy. If the people don't want these guns available to anyone they can pass laws to prevent it. Don't like it, eat shit.

This is not a democracy, dude. This is a federated republic. Read the 2nd amendment sometime.

 

[gfm7175]

Your questions were fucking stupid. If this country were to ban the sale of these military weapons these whackos would have a hard time getting their hands on one. You don't even have to confiscate the ones already out there.

The weapon used was not a military weapon.
The "whackos" would still be able to acquire them via other means.

So the "whackos" are the problem (not the guns)??

 

[Matt Dillon]

I know bud. I know you think we're evil gun grabbers. We just don't need those AR's, no one but soldiers do, I'm sorry. Call me a "gun grabber" all you want my friend. I'm not budging on this. Our children mean too much to me.

Soldiers don't have ARs. Soldiers have M4s, M16s, M249s, and M40s (which are Remingtons)

All the guns Biden gave thousands of along with thousands of dollars optics to The Taliban.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I don't have kids. And are you seriously claiming that there were never any public shootings in America prior to last couple of decades?

There certainly weren't anywhere near as many per capita. That crap started around 2000.

The first bad school shooting of this new increased trend started right in the middle of the "Assault Weapon Ban" and they even had pipe bombs.
What was that one? Klebold and Harris..Columbine.

One of them wore commie insignia, too.

"Had a red medallion on his left boot bearing a sickle and hammer. "

https://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.php

So banning ARs does nothing to stop things like that.

 

[Matt Dillon]

It's the guns.

Bitch.

Guns don't load themselves and pull their own triggers.

 

[gfm7175]

Logical fallacies may seem like fun but they are logical fallacies.

You wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you in the ass.

You start out with a strawman argument

No I didn't.

where you claim the other side has argued that gun regulation will stop all mass murders. That is your strawman.

Not what I claimed. Read my claim again.

Then you pile on with a false dichotamy fallacy

No I didn't.

where you argue that if all mass murders are not stopped then the laws are a failure.

Not what I claimed. Read my claim again. Actually, since this has now become a repetitive issue within this very response alone, I suggest that you first learn English before you do so.

Let's modify this to see if you can answer one that is similar.

Given the fact that current voting laws don't stop voter fraud, why do you believe that additional laws will stop voter fraud?

I don't believe that. You seem to be unaware of the purpose of laws.

So give us your answer right after you tell us when you stopped beating your wife. A loaded question is always a loaded question and yours was certainly a loaded question. If you want to prove it wasn't a loaded then answer my question which I readily admit is a logical fallacy.

It was not a loaded question and I answered your question above.

If you truly believe that more laws won't stop mass murders than you must also truly believe that more laws won't stop voter fraud.

Correct, and I do.

The insanity is yours since the question you asked only reflects your thinking and not the thinking of anyone on the left.

The insanity is yours, as it reflects your programming.

Once again, you provide us with the same fallacy.

There's no fallacy.

Since millions of people have voted without committing any crimes why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent voters for the actions of a select few people?]/quote]
I don't and I'm not.

Armed personnel aren't that effective when it comes to mass shootings.

There is a reason why these mass shootings always occur in "gun free zones" such as schools, dude. They don't happen at shooting ranges.

In fact if we go back to your first question and its logical fallacy we can simply rely on the same logical fallacy you started with.
Since an armed guard in the TOPS grocery was unable to stop a mass murder why do you think adding more armed guards will stop mass murders? Then we can ask, "Isn't your belief that armed guards will stop mass murders the very definition of insanity?"

RQAA.

When was the last time anyone killed 4 people with a baseball bat?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...committed-baseball-bat-massachusetts-n1278325

Are you now going to advocate for the same measures being taken with regard to BASEBALL BATS?

I don't think people should be attacked with baseball bats but it would certainly result in a lot less people killed by mass murderers if they could only rely on baseball bats.

Not necessarily, and "only relying on baseball bats" is not even a possibility to begin with.

The funny thing about all those murderers is that they all used a gun that they were able to easily buy. Why do you refuse to admit that this is a common link?

I don't, but there's no way to stop it even if you wanted to. The person is the issue, not the tool. The right to self defense is inherent, dude. It SHALL NOT be infringed upon.

A simple preventative measure would be to not let them buy a gun designed to kill people.

What is "a gun designed to kill people"?

But installing doors that can be quickly locked is not simple or cheap.

So children's lives aren't worth a bit of effort and investment?

You would be talking billions of dollars and many years.

Nope. And even so, we've now sent over $50 billion to fund the Ukraine government and war machine. Why not instead spend it on keeping our own children safe?

Then you would also need to do the same to windows, classroom doors, and walls inside the school. Somehow I think someone not willing to sacrifice their ability to buy an Ar-15

This shooter did not use an AR-15.

is going to be willing to sacrifice and pay more in taxes to protect children in schools.
What gives you the right to demand that other people sacrifice their children so you can own an AR-15?

I'm not making any such demand.
This shooter did not use an AR-15.

 

[LurchAddams]

Soldiers don't have ARs. Soldiers have M4s, M16s, M249s, and M40s (which are Remingtons)

All the guns Biden gave thousands of along with thousands of dollars optics to The Taliban.

You got it, champ.

 

[LurchAddams]

Guns don't load themselves and pull their own triggers.

I know, buddy. The think is, that asshole with his 400 rounds and high-capacity magazines didn't really need a M16, did he? No. We need to get those things off the street my friend. I'm sorry.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I know, buddy. The think is, that asshole with his 400 rounds and high-capacity magazines didn't really need a M16, did he? No. We need to get those things off the street my friend. I'm sorry.

He didn't get an M16. I'd like to know how he got the money for all those guns & ammo he bought, and magazines, and that retarded front grip placement deserves a story all its own.

That's not stuff a kid working at Wendy's could afford. I could afford stuff like that, but what you get for what you pay there does not interest me.

A kid would have to work at Wendy's 6 years and never spend any money at all to afford that much guns and ammo.

I doubt he was working since he was 12. That was at least $2500 lump sum worth of stuff, and I'm estimating on the low side.

What was the other thing I was thinking about?

Oh yeah.

Are you aware the first really bad school shooting like this that kicked off the trend of them happening more often happened right in the middle of the Assault Weapons ban?

They used shotguns and pipe bombs. I think it was 1999, but don't quote me on that.

I know I was on Harris's account that night because somebody hacked it and gave it to me. It was passed around like a ho at a drunken bachelor party.

There were only 3 things there, somebody did some cleaning, but they were pretty fucked in the head.

Can't remember the year but the day was April 20th.

I was semi ij337 at that time; I did a lot of stuff back in the day. Enough to where my crew was miles better than Beto's i4m3r "Cult of the Dead Cow".

Fuckin' lamer he is and they were. We were the top crew, the only ones who knew as much as we did was Manson from the Apple crew, they knew some stuff. The wizard of Woz was around there.That guy knew a lot, too.

Mac vs. PC was a real thing.

I tell ya wut, nobody gave any CDC lamers ("Beto's" crew) Harris or Klebold's accounts that night.

TL: DR? OK

You cannot tell me that banning ARs will stop horrific school shootings/murders from happening; Because I've lived through a time when they definitely did not.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

[1a] Given the fact that murder laws do not stop mass murders from happening, why do you believe that additional laws (e.g. gun regulation/confiscation laws) will somehow stop mass murders from happening?

[1b] Isn't your belief in [1a] the very definition of insanity?

[2] MANY millions of Statesman own guns and have not committed any crimes with them. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

[3] Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

[4a] Why do you immediately blame the gun rather than the person using it?

[4b] Why do you never examine the murderers themselves in order to find common links between them which could then be addressed (e.g. prescription of psychoactive drugs)?

[4c] Why do you never consider taking simple preventative measures (e.g. installing special doors that can be quickly closed and locked)?

[5] What gives you the right to tell other people what they do or do not "need"?

I'll just address question 5.

The elected legislature of the people has the right to impose restriction of dangerous or anti-social behavior that is not protected by the Constitution.
Firearms ownership is one of those protected rights, however.

The issue is whether the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of all or any weapons.
If some weapons are not allowed to the general public--lets use nuclear bombs, for example, then the precedent is set.

The liberals who oppose all private ownership of firearms are not quite as pathetically stupid as you conservatives, but they're too fucking close for their own good.

 

[LurchAddams]

He didn't get an M16. I'd like to know how he got the money for all those guns & ammo he bought, and magazines, and that retarded front grip placement deserves a story all its own.

That's not stuff a kid working at Wendy's could afford. I could afford stuff like that, but what you get for what you pay there does not interest me.

A kid would have to work at Wendy's 6 years and never spend any money at all to afford that much guns and ammo.

I doubt he was working since he was 12.

I'm not sure where you're going with this so I'll just repeat. You can hunt. I know what a hunting rifle is. You can keep those, pal. And if you have sidearms, you can keep those too as long as they are not auto or semi-automatic.

If I felt unsafe I would buy a sidearm and would have no trouble open-carrying. I just have never needed one.

We're getting those other guns, pal.

 

[gfm7175]

I'll just address question 5.

The elected legislature of the people has the right to impose restriction of dangerous or anti-social behavior that is not protected by the Constitution.
Firearms ownership is one of those protected rights, however.

The issue is whether the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of all or any weapons.

It does (all weapons). It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If some weapons are not allowed to the general public--lets use nuclear bombs, for example, then the precedent is set.

Nope. ALL weapons are allowed.

The liberals who oppose all private ownership of firearms are not quite as pathetically stupid as you conservatives, but they're too fucking close for their own good.

Self defense is an inherent right, moron.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm not sure where you're going with this

His words were very clear. Do you not understand English (rhetorical question at this point)?

so I'll just repeat.

That's all that you libtards can ever seem to do... repeat your same BS over and over again.

You can hunt.

That he can.

I know what a hunting rifle is.

I don't believe you.

You can keep those, pal.

Great! I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear that he can keep his AR-15.

And if you have sidearms, you can keep those too as long as they are not auto or semi-automatic.

He can keep any and all of those. Read the 2nd Amendment, dude.

If I felt unsafe I would buy a sidearm and would have no trouble open-carrying. I just have never needed one.

That's your right. Now stop infringing upon the rights of others.

We're getting those other guns, pal.

No, you're not. Fuck you, commie.